you want explanation:
all the -3s are wrong marks because Chans SlSt was for sure no GOE 0 to start the evaluation from. If you think the SlSt was +1 and then reduce for the fall the obligory -3 you end up in GOE -2, or a judge started from +2 then -3 and endet up in -1
You have to be in Minus because of the fall, but both GOE -1 and GOE -2 are both a rule correct mark for this SlSt

I just noticed you and I posted the same thing re: evangeline's question. Yes, the -3 was a mistake on the SlSt so those judges need to be coached accordingly. Step Sequence and Jumps are very different in nature and should be treated accordingly.

I have a question regarding Tomas Verner: In China, he did 3F-3T and 3Lz, and he got an edge call on his 3F. I thought that in Russia he did 3Lz-3T and 3F as a solo jump, to avoid getting negative GOE on the combination, but other posts said he did 3F-3T.So, it was a 3F-3T or a 3Lz-3T?

I don't agree with, or care for, many aspects of the COP, it's as simple as that. Particularly with GOE's and with the entire PCS setup. I believe there is still wide enough latitude for unhealthy manipulation to take place. And I have always been against judge scoring anonymity, it abets the possibility (probability) of manipulation.

Wally, you can spout GOP rules and regulations like an Army drill sargeant all day long, but it still doesn't obscure the issue for me--that Chan was overscored (or others were underscored).

So in your opinion, was Chan overscored because the system is as it is or is it because the judges are biased and intentionally gave him an underserved advantage in GoE and PCS?

If it's the former, I agree with you that the system could use some tweaks. But if it's the latter, you cannot just accuse them of improper behaviour simply because you think so, even though we all know this sport's shady history. Innocent until proven guilty. Why people like to doubt professionally trained judges who can watch and judge programmes live is a bit beyond me. We are only armchair judges after all!

I am not a Chan-bot, I much prefer Jeremy! I'm just trying to say that we should give the judges the benefit of the doubt rather than accuse them of unfair bias without any legitimate reason.

I have a question regarding Tomas Verner: In China, he did 3F-3T and 3Lz, and he got an edge call on his 3F. I thought that in Russia he did 3Lz-3T and 3F as a solo jump, to avoid getting negative GOE on the combination, but other posts said he did 3F-3T.So, it was a 3F-3T or a 3Lz-3T?

The feed I was watching was buffering and getting fuzzy during Verner's and Abbott's SPs, so I guess it is possible that Verner did a 3Lz-3T--it's a bit difficult to tell the edge going in when your feed is jumping around! I will confirm on Youtube when the videos are up.

Mistakes could have happened, unintentionally, or some judges saw things that others didn't depending on where they sit.

Re:SlSt2 that Chan had in his SC SP, given that a fall is not an automatic -3 GOE, the judges certainly was within in their rights to consider mitigating actors in diminishing the impact of the falls. In fact, judges are instructed to consider the element as a whole and score the element as though it's error free before considering the impact of the error. So say a judge would have given Chan +2 without the mistake, then +2 - 3 = -1 In Step Sequences, more than jumps, and we see it in Ice Dance mostly - falls don't and shouldn't result in automatic -3. Crone/Poirier and Davis/White are examples of that. Why? Because unlike jumps, which lasts about 1-2 second or so in the air, + maybe 2-3 seconds on landing, a step sequence is a lot longer and relatively, a fall on a St is a much smaller part of the whole element vs. a fall on a jump. Hence, it is not a surprise different judges come up with more varied GOE when an error happens on a St. In my opinion, those judges who gave Chan -3 on the SlSt erred by not considering the element as a whole since it was unlikely the element would have scored 0 GOE without error.

Granted, not everyone look at a same thing in the exact same way, hence there are usually 9 judges, not just one person. However, so long as they are following the correct underlying principles. does it really matter there are reasonable difference in opinion?

Ergo, there is an element of subjectivity in giving out GOEs. And when subjectivity comes into the picture, there is possible room to play around, or so to speak--which was my original point.

Ergo, there is an element of subjectivity in giving out GOEs. And when subjectivity comes into the picture, there is possible room to play around, or so to speak--which was my original point.

Maybe by 1 point, but 2 would be difficult. euroskate and I just answered your example by narrowing it down to a range of -1 to -2 as possible correct answers, any other answer would have raised a red flag with the referee, guaranteed because 0 or above is an automatic error in this case and -3 is unreasonable and judges who did it may be dinged. Subjectivity? Sure, humans are not robots, there bound to have some difference but you can't possibly manipulate it in a way that gives something that should be -1 to -2 a +3 without getting called. So despite difference in opinion, GOE still tends to be an objective assessment based on the established rules and principles as opposed to a subjective exercise of personal taste.

I want to see Chan land a 3A in a short this season! He will have the GPF and Canadian Nationals and Worlds. He wouldn't go to 4CC because of worlds training I am sure. His quad/triple was great but I would just like to see him land that 3A in a short now.

Good for Gachinsky getting better by doing a quad double rather than going for the quad triple which even when he did wasn't great.

I realize there's no point in even trying to debate this with you because you are so pro-Chan that you can't even begin to have a non-biased discussion on the matter. Therefore, there's no point in even trying. Good day!

If I were to go quote you from the Skate Canada thread, the same could be said of you. But I'm asking you to explain to me where you feel he should have taken the hit. Please. Because suggesting that there is a conspiracy so vast that is to ignore the rules makes Oliver Stone's JFK a model of narrative simplicity (and suggesting that all the judges simply don't understand the rules and you do is ... well, debatable).

Trewyn, when Plushenko fell at SLC, he was still ranked fourth. He fell on a combo jump, so didn't complete a combo either (bigger error than falling on a solo jump), and the calibre at the Olympics is by definition going to be higher than at a GP event (so conceivably, Plushenko could've been top two at a GP event - if Chan had fallen on his combo quad and not completed the combo, he would've been second here). So I don't know how much this is true. I personally would rather see a fall on a triple axel than a popped Axel (to single, not double), for comparison.

Originally Posted by bigsisjiejie

I find the pro-Chan crowd on this board almost scary--close to bot-dom.

Before the Olympics, someone wished Patrick Chan had cancer. During the Olympics, someone wished that it was Patrick Chan's mother that died instead of Joannie Rochette's so he'd withdraw (these two comments where made by someone who has been banned). After the Olympics someone else wished that Chan would improve everything but never score well. I'm not making any of this up.

Let me know which of the pro-Chan crowd have made comments that are comparable.

Originally Posted by bigsisjiejie

Wally, you can spout GOP rules and regulations like an Army drill sargeant all day long, but it still doesn't obscure the issue for me--that Chan was overscored (or others were underscored).

If the maximum prison penalty by law is five years, and a judge gives five years, can you say the judge was too lenient? No. The judge was following the law to the letter. He has nothing to do with the creation of the law. So you can't say he was too lenient. You can say that the law should be changed. But if so, you have to say how and why. Otherwise you're acting emotionally, and frankly - I wouldn't want a judge to act emotionally when handing down a prison sentence.

I am not a Chan-bot, I much prefer Jeremy! I'm just trying to say that we should give the judges the benefit of the doubt rather than accuse them of unfair bias without any legitimate reason.

I agree. It seems to me that judges may have some prejudice but Chan bashers of GS are more biased. To insist Chan will win even if he falls 5 times in FS is absolutely absurd. Just baseless, emotional arguements like Yuna was predetermined to win no matter what.

Just watched top three's performances. Loved them. They all skated well! I am a Jeremy fan and I wish he won. However, Chan's program was great except 3A.
As I like Chan's skating too, I am a little worried about his struggling 3A. Has he succeeded one this season? Don't think so.

IMO, PCS is getting more important this season in the order and I don't like it. Takahashi and Chan come to mind; two skaters who get the highest PCS even when they do not skate their best.

To be honest, I have more problem with Takahashi's PCS than with Chan's because of the BIG difference of TES and PCS especially in LP at SA.
Don't get me wrong... Takahashi(and Chan) deserve high PCS but the judges really had to give Takahashi 6+ more points than Oda that night? Well, 3 or 4 points would have been more reasonable.

Abbott will have a quad in LP. If Abbott lands a quad and Chan lands one too but falls on 3A, that'll be interesting. Can't wait to see the LP show down.

Back to SP. I hate Chan's SP openning moves, too much like Elvis Stojko. The choreograph itself was so so, nothing special but his strokes, spins, and 4t-3t, even 3f were really extraordinary. Without the 3A fall, it was perfect. Jeremy's SP still hasn't skated to its potential but much focused and prompted this time. It's so difficult. I imagine that it could make one dizzy on those head turns and postures, yet he has to do all those transitions and spins and jumps and he did so well.